Where are the socialists?

28 posts / 0 new

I posted a similar post previously, but I never got an answer. Are their any socialists, progressives or lefties in Hollywood? If you can find any, please name them. How many hollywood types are willing to stop living like kings in the name of social justice? Do they really expect us to believe that they want to give up their million dollar bank accounts? Their agents, lawyers and tax accountants? Their castles, their private jets and unlimited, first class world travel? Their expensive clothes, jewelry and cars? Really? They wan't to give up their private doctors and world class health care so they can spend hours sitting in a waiting room next to you and me? Yeah dats da ticket! Micheal Moore and Barbara Streisand just can't wait for the opportunity to sit in a doctors office waiting for the nurse to say "next." They want to live just like the unwashed masses? Puh----------leeeeeeze!

So who the hell are all of these socialists? They may want socialism for you, but they certainly do not want it for themselves.

Can you name a few of these hollywood lefties? Hollywood should put up or shut up. Socialists my arse!


rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Comments

I don't know! The conservatives are the one's who have labeled them socialists so they should be able to answer your question.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

This is more of that "rich liberals are hypocrites" junk. I don't care whether rich liberals are hypocrites or not. Conservatives seem to think that this issue is going to carry the day for them. I guess we can't tell them where to put their energies. Good luck to them with this argument.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

you do not understand socialism of the the people not the socialist.

they are to smart for the that, it is lowly dumb cannon fodder that they have to make sure are being taken care of, they know how to run you life better than you do .so they will tke your money and freedom to raise the society while they live like kings because after all their ideas about your life are so much better than yours.

their ideas are so good they have to be forced on you, that is the reason behind gun and ammo bans.

workingman's picture
workingman
Joined:
Mar. 20, 2012 8:13 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I don't know! The conservatives are the one's who have labeled them socialists so they should be able to answer your question.

Nope, the folks that I mention along with Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, Sharon Sarandon, Alec Baldwin and many, many others champion socialist and progressive causes for others. Not for themselves. It's the worst kept secret in hollywood. I don't hear many of them claiming to be capitalists as they live their ultimate capitalist lifesyle do you? They bitch about the 1% ignoring that fact that they themselves are part of the 0.1%. How many of these folks are not capitalists. Somewhere between zero and none.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

You know rigel, there are people out there lucky enough to achieve great wealth whether through hard work or just dumb luck, but that doesn't automatically disqualify them from caring about those who have to deal with the lower end of the financial spectrum. You don't have to believe in greed and power for the few just because you are rich. I know that you would like it to be that black and white but it isn't.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
the folks that I mention along with Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, Sharon Sarandon, Alec Baldwin and many, many others champion socialist and progressive causes for others. Not for themselves.
What kind of causes are we talking about here? Could you name a few? (I believe it's Susan Sarandon).

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I've known old money people who were very liberal and not only championed liberal and socialist causes but participated in those programs. Their father was even dragged in front of the McCarthy hearings as being suspected of being a communist because of his liberal leanings.

Some people can drop dishes and make money while the majority would have to clean up the mess. Having money isn't bad it's what you do with it that counts. Problem is that it seems the majority of uber rich let wealth and particularly power go to their heads and don't do nice things with it. Hence the need to restrict how much wealth people can have and progressive taxation has been shown to be effective for that.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
the folks that I mention along with Sean Penn, Tom Hanks, Sharon Sarandon, Alec Baldwin and many, many others champion socialist and progressive causes for others. Not for themselves.
What kind of causes are we talking about here? Could you name a few? (I believe it's Susan Sarandon).

Okay here are some examples: Alec Baldwin goes to OWS to complain about the banksters. He has his own investment funds run by wallstreet as do most of Hollywood. He works for capital one. Filming ads to bring in as much cash to capital one as possible. He is in the 0.1% yet he complains that people who have much less money than himself have too much.

Sean Penn and Micheal Moore claim to love the Cuban health care system. Do you think either one of these guys will ever be sitting in a waiting room waiting hours for their share of government approved health care? I encourage them both to go to Cuba for health care. Prove how great it is. Castro would love the publicity. So far, nothing. You gonna see either one of these nit wits in a waiting room anytime soon? I don't thing so Tim.

Okay, now I have a question for you. If one makes and keeps their fortune through capitalism and leads the ultimate capitalist life of luxury, how can he NOT be a capitalist? I have never seen such a collection of rampant capitalists in denial.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Socialist doesn't equal broke. Even in a socialist country like the Netherlands or others, the top tax rate is about 50%. So if you make alot of money, you would still have plenty left over after paying your share of taxes to the socialist state.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm
Quote lovecraft:

Socialist doesn't equal broke. Even in a socialist country like the Netherlands or others, the top tax rate is about 50%. So if you make alot of money, you would still have plenty left over after paying your share of taxes to the socialist state.

Again, they made ther fortunes through capitalism. They lead a capitalist life that would be the envy of any bankster. They have investment funds and tax accountants paid to give them the lowest possible tax rate. Socialism got them nothing, capitalism got them filthy rich.

How can they NOT be capitalists? Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Okay, now I have a question for you. If one makes and keeps their fortune through capitalism and leads the ultimate capitalist life of luxury, how can heNOT be a capitalist? I have never seen such a collection of rampant capitalists in denial.
Just to be straight, getting a huge paycheck does not make you a Capitalist. Investing Capital and making money off of it is what makes you a Captialist.
He has his own investment funds run by wallstreet as do most of Hollywood.
As does everybody who has a 401k or IRA. Not a very strong argument.
Filming ads to bring in as much cash to capital one as possible. He is in the 0.1%
Actors often play these roles. He also portrays himself to be a waiter who gets his tie cut off. This is his job.
Sean Penn and Micheal Moore claim to love the Cuban health care system.
I have never heard them make that claim. The way I interpret their actions here is simply to illustrate the point that a Socialized health care system prpoduces better results for a country than our private health care system. I think you are inferring way too much about them than you are entitled. Much like Soros, Gates and Buffett having the desire to give more money to the Government all by themselves.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Again, they made ther fortunes through capitalism. They lead a capitalist life that would be the envy of any bankster. They have investment funds and tax accountants paid to give them the lowest possible tax rate. Socialism got them nothing, capitalism got them filthy rich.

How can they NOT be capitalists? Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?

How people? How?

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am

Just because people have money doesn't preclude them from caring and wanting the lives of those with less to be better. In all societies, the monied have always lived differently than the rest. Alot of money does provide. However, for the rest of the people who aren't monied and will never be monied(excluding lottery), a system of some socialist programs might be better for them. From a practical standpoint, providing for the general welfare can require some socialist type solutions.

But this is a waste of discussion arguing about what you call someone. If you are an artist, you are naturally a 'capitalist'. You create something and someone pays you what they believe it is worth. It still doesn't mean you can't have concern about what's best for all citizens of a country.

lovecraft
Joined:
May. 8, 2012 12:06 pm

Socialists I don't know of any. Fascists and Nazis on the other hand, Mel Gibson and his anti semetic screed, wife beating and drunkenness, or Arnold Schwartzenegger and his SS stormtrooper father... Well, I could go on...

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote rigel1:... If one makes and keeps their fortune through capitalism and leads the ultimate capitalist life of luxury, how can he NOT be a capitalist? I have never seen such a collection of rampant capitalists (Hollywood actors) in denial.

You are tottally ignorant of what is going on, for the second time now.

Most liberals, democrats are not Socialists, in the dictionary defintion of the word. None of them say they are. None of them advocate it. To think they are is stupid. Moore even wrote a book saying how great the capitalist system was when he was young.

What Baldwin and the others mentioned want are - for the most part - obvious things that any thinking person would want - regulations and tax rates that are closer to our historical averages, a health care and welfare system more like most of the developed world, more environmental standards. Many actors travel to distant parts of the world and be a voice for exploited war torn refugees and the like.

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Actually, capitalism is an economic fundamental, not a social system. It merely using existing capital to maintain production of capital or expand the production of capital.. Real capital is stuff. Maintain the production of stuff by using existing stuff, or expand production of stuff with existing stuff. That is capitalism. Money is just an abstract representation of stuff.

Even a subsistence farmer who uses no money and trades with no one uses the fundamental of capitalism. He uses existing seed (capital) to plant and maintain production. All the money in the world couldn't purchase the capital of seed if the seed didn't already exist. Capitalism builds on what already exists (real stuff) at any moment in time.

Even a socialist state would have to adhere to the economic fundamentals of capitalism.We tend to define our destructive social application of capitalism as the only definition of capitalism. We define our application as the only possible application of capitalism. It isn't

When someone says capitalism is the problem, or that capitalism is imploding, what they mean is....our application of it is a problem, or our application of it is imploding.

The core definition of socialism is direct worker ownership of their workplace, Probably a self-employed physician would earn more than someone working as a self-employed barber. Both would be operating a socialist enterprise. They wouldn't share the fruits of their labor with someone else...an employer. "Those who work at the mill should own the mill". That's all socialism is. Direct worker ownership of their workplace.

Socialism doesn't necessarily imply equal income though elements of a social democracy sometimes insure better equitability through taxation redistributed socially in a manner that benefits everyone such as health care, education, parks, street lighting, trash collection, etc. The monetary burden for such things becomes a shared cost of the society rather than pushing unaffordable costs on the lower economic tiers to provide those things for themselves.They can't.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Two of them are on the radio together every friday. One is a senator the other is a radio talk show disc jockey.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am
Quote rigel1:

Again, they made ther fortunes through capitalism. They lead a capitalist life that would be the envy of any bankster. They have investment funds and tax accountants paid to give them the lowest possible tax rate. Socialism got them nothing, capitalism got them filthy rich.

How can they NOT be capitalists? Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?

How people? How?

They are a different kind of capitalist. They capitalize on their talents. They don't capitalize on the suffering of others.

That's how they are better than the private sector big wig.

Capitalism isn't an idealogy in the manner of what you're pushing as far as I know. I don't remember reading that Stalin or Lenin being sharing, caring and poor.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am
Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?
Mostly because they vote better.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:

Again, they made ther fortunes through capitalism. They lead a capitalist life that would be the envy of any bankster. They have investment funds and tax accountants paid to give them the lowest possible tax rate. Socialism got them nothing, capitalism got them filthy rich.

How can they NOT be capitalists? Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?

How people? How?

They are a different kind of capitalist. They capitalize on their talents. They don't capitalize on the suffering of others.

That's how they are better than the private sector big wig.

Capitalism isn't an idealogy in the manner of what you're pushing as far as I know. I don't remember reading that Stalin or Lenin being sharing, caring and poor.

poly replies: Capitalism isn't an ideology. It's an economic fundamental. Its core is generating a surplus beyond immediate need to maintain or expand production. Every human society has utilized it in one form or another. However, our peculiar application of capitalism is an ideology.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:
Quote Bush_Wacker:
Quote rigel1:

Again, they made ther fortunes through capitalism. They lead a capitalist life that would be the envy of any bankster. They have investment funds and tax accountants paid to give them the lowest possible tax rate. Socialism got them nothing, capitalism got them filthy rich.

How can they NOT be capitalists? Why are they any better than any private sector big wig?

How people? How?

They are a different kind of capitalist. They capitalize on their talents. They don't capitalize on the suffering of others.

That's how they are better than the private sector big wig.

Capitalism isn't an idealogy in the manner of what you're pushing as far as I know. I don't remember reading that Stalin or Lenin being sharing, caring and poor.

poly replies: Capitalism isn't an ideology. It's an economic fundamental. Its core is generating a surplus beyond immediate need to maintain or expand production. Every human society has utilized it in one form or another. However, our peculiar application of capitalism is an ideology.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

This is getting fun! Watching everybody squirm and define capitalism how they please. Denial! Denial! Denial!

They ARE capitalists but ya'll love em cause they claim they are not. They are not superiour to ANY businessman. My best friend is a business owner and a capitalist and nobody at his company suffers as you all love to claim. They work for him, he pays them. They like the deal or look for a better one. Nobody is forced to do anything.

CAPITALIST! CAPITALIST! CAPITALIST!

They are not special, loving capitalists. They are greedy, filty rich, attention craving, hyper judgemental, holier than though, lap of luxury capitalists. No less greedy than any wall street type.

They are not what they claim to be. Get over it people.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
They are not superiour to ANY businessman.
Yes they are. They vote better.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:
They are not superiour to ANY businessman.
Yes they are. They vote better.

Art, my friend you are in serious danger of losing your progressive card. I have seen no dogma saying that greed and obscene wealth is good if the chap has a "D" in front, behind or anywhere near his name. You have not been paying attention. The 1% are EEEE-VIL. And the 0.1% are even EEEE--viler. Careful, don't wanna yank your card.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery ~
Winston Churchill

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
The 1% are EEEE-VIL. And the 0.1% are even EEEE--viler. Careful, don't wanna yank your card.
Yaknow, I've never said this. There are good one percenters and there are bad one percenters. there are even wonderful one percenters. My uncle was one of those. My dad and his friends were wonderful one percenters. Most of them even voted Republican back when Republicans were further left than today's Democrats. My dad switched to Democrat when Bush became President. That hardly disqualifies me as a liberal.

Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery ~

Winston Churchill

That would probably explain why there are no Socialists in America. (Bernie Sanders calls himself one, but he's not).

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, Churchill allowed the non-socialist government of the Soviet Union to define socialism for him. The west picked up the strawman called socialism and has used it ever since to hide what socialism really is...direct worker ownership of their workplace. Note that when Germany nationalized some industry prior to World War I, Engles denounced it as a mere change of employers.. Government ownership is not socialism.

Anything beyond direct worker ownership of their workplace (such as universal health care) isn't socialism and may or may not be included in a socialist state. That would have to be democratically determined.

The core of capitalism, rigel, is simply using existing capital to maintain or expand capital. Every human society in history has utilized the basic premise. The means they do it is socially and culturally determined. Even a modern socialist society would have to adhere to the core premise of capitalism or it would quickly collapse. Take a basic course in economic history..

Our own peculiar application of capitalism has morphed into increasing monetary claims on declining "real capital" (stuff). As the Bank of England noted, the current application to prop up finance is reducing global economic output of real stuff $60 to $200 Trillion over the next decade. Considering the global economic output of "real stuff", food, clothing, housing, etc. is in the $47 Trillion range per year, that's quite a chunk. Viva Banksters! They are impoverishing the world.

The good news. Producing less and less food, clothing, housing and the like may slow (though not stop) environmental degradation.

The bad news. People are going to die from a lack of basics needed for human survival. The merging of economic, resource and environmental collapse won't be pretty. Nothing is being addressed to prevent it..The opposite is true...the merging is being accelerated. There is an ideology to maintain. Beliefs in how things have to function are more important than the survival of the species.. Opting for what's actually so is off the table.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease".

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

[quote] There are good one percenters and there are bad one percenters.

Then why do progressives demonize ALL one percenters as if they are all seeds of the Devil? They don't say "some" one percenters, they have declared war on them all. The term "the one percent" excludes no one. Mass character assasination.

rigel1's picture
rigel1
Joined:
Jan. 31, 2011 7:49 am
Quote rigel1:..Then why do progressives demonize ALL one percenters as if they are all seeds of the Devil? They don't say "some" one percenters, they have declared war on them all. The term "the one percent" excludes no one. Mass character assasination.

It's so easy to argue against straw man arguements, isn't it?

Dr. Econ's picture
Dr. Econ
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

End. Fracking. Now!

California is already dealing with the worst drought in that state's history. So, the last thing residents needed was to learn that some of their dwindling water supply has been contaminated.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system